Few issues are more personal to soldiers than the question of whether they can trust their rifles. And few rifles in history have generated more controversy over their reliability than the American M-16 assault rifle and its carbine version, the M-4.

In recent weeks, a fresh round of complaints about weapon malfunctions in Afghanistan, mentioned in an Army historians report that documented small-arms jamming during the fierce battle in Wanat last year, has rekindled the discussion. Are the M-16 and M-4 the best rifles available for American troops? Or are they fussy and punchless and less than ideal for war?

Dont expect a clear answer any time soon. Expect several clear answers at once  many of them contradictory. This is because when talk turns to the M-16 and the M-4, it enters emotionally charged territory. The conversation is burdened by history, cluttered with conflicting anecdotes, and argued over by passionate camps.

This much is indisputable: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C. Westmorelands request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been checkered.

This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out. Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the weapons terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. Whats more, the jamming was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as failure to extract, which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle.

“The 5.56 uses a slow rate of rifling to keep the bullet barely stable during flight. The slow rotation allows the bullet to tumble when it strikes soft tissue and cause more damage. The slow rotation and ultra velocity combine to cause the bullets to fragment or tumble if they hit anything during travel.”

Current standards are 1x9 for the A2 and 1x7 for the M4. The slow twist/light bullet/tumble thing dates back to the early models. 77 grain Mk262 ammunition is supposed to be available for longer ranges.

The M16 is a fine rifle when maintained. However, the design is almost 50 years old. Other nations around the world are creating new designs and better designs while we redress the same platform over and over and over again.

Sadly, we won’t see any real new effective systems here in the US for a long long time. Thanks to all the short sighted elected officials that killed the innovative firearms industry in this nation.

"The weapons had been stored with a light coating of oil and the fine sand combined with the oil and made the rifle a single shot. Guys who weren't on the front lines didn't find out that their rifle was a paperweight until they got into a firefight."

The first M16 suffered from jams due to some genius deciding that the chamber didn't really need to be chrome plated like Stoner had specified.That and using ball power with too much calcium carbonate as a stabilizer caused a lot of problems.

“The first M16 suffered from jams due to some genius deciding that the chamber didn’t really need to be chrome plated like Stoner had specified.That and using ball power with too much calcium carbonate as a stabilizer caused a lot of problems.”

Pretty much (chamber and barrel were to be chrome lined). The ball powder was already in stock, so they wanted to “save money”..... Then, they told soldiers the rifle didn’t need cleaning and didn’t even provide cleaning kits.

A lot of the problems that we encountered in 18 years ago have been addressed (but not necessarily solved) since then. The bullets used are heavier, they use a penetrator now, and the twist rate was increased to provide stability. I don't think they've solved all the problems.

As for the comment that our rifles should have been cleaned - we didn't have the chance. Our weapons weren't issued to us until the last minute and we weren't given the opportunity to fire it until we were attacked. Having a light coating of oil doesn't mean the weapon is dirty. That's the way they were kept to prevent rust.

When I entered the military in '74 most of the older guys were badmouthing the M-16. I had several negative experiences with them that have undoubtedly tainted my opinion.

On the other hand, there have been numerous test and evaluations and enough anecdotal accounts to come to a reliable decision that the M-16 is not the best weapon for the money. Units that are allowed to select their own weapons, like special operations, almost always select a more reliable weapon. Many of them pulled M-14s out of storage and used them and some are using HKs.

With good smokeless ammunition the M16 works great but if the ammo is cheap and the powder is not smokeless the weapon becomes damn near useless.You pretty much have to fieldstrip that weapon and get rid of the soot and carbon deposits.Because if you just add oil to it that soot and carbon become stickey as hell and the weapon will refuse to function.

39
posted on 11/03/2009 6:08:17 AM PST
by puppypusher
(The world is going to the Dogs.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.